Today I talked to a guy guy from Nemea who makes fantastic reds from Agiorgitiko and he told me that his grandfather lived past the age of 100 and drank a litre of red wine every day. My grandfather was close to 90 when he died, and he was most probably drinking even more, but also mainly red wine. I am not saying that is representative or that we all should up our intake, but any statistics are a bit so what.

Oh well, that’s me doomed then! I’m at around 3 bottles a week, although some of that gets used in cooking. I have 2 dry days each week and enjoy my wine with or after food over the course of an evening. I believe that a good diet does more to keep you healthy than sticking to a 14 unit limit, especially as 21 units was OK not so long ago!

Happy to drink nothing with a meal on a alcohol free day, of which there three per week, and have a cup of tea or coffee after. It seems some of our meals are less gastronomic than others on this thread. Not yet found a wine that goes with baked beans

I was asked this question by my Doctor some months ago. I started to reply by saying that my wife and I had a bottle of wine each evening with our meal. The doctor broke in "Too much, too much he said. I never managed to tell him about the couple of sherries before dinner and the scotch while watching TV.
Gordon Craig

You probably need to add about 50% to whatever anyone claims…or is that only when telling the doctor?

This brings to mind the old one about you’re only an alcoholic if you drink more than your doctor…!

The increasingly shrill and strident tones from some involved with publicising the new lower recommended limits does grate with me…and I tend to do the opposite of what people like that tell me ‘is good for me’. Particularly when in some cases they have been guilty of suppressing facts or bending scientific surveys.

So it’s 2-3 bottles for the week between us - of which I have most…plus the odd beer or two after cricket in summer and about 4 bottles of whisky per winter…

I was pretty sure that everyone was vaguely aware of the government guidelines, but that most people just decided to take them with a fairly large pinch of salt… Enter stage left, my 71yr old father. In a discussion about how much wine per week is acceptable, he confidently just stated “even the government says you can have three to four glasses a night, and they always err on the side of caution”. Turns out he always thought a unit = a 175ml glass, and thought you could still have 21 of them a week, even if being an uber-abstemious goody goody.

…preferably in Scotland which seems to be lurching towards Prohibition views at times…even without the unlamented Kenny McAskill as a minister now…I will probably be barred now for being political…
Buckfast ‘tonic’ wine is indeed a problem for some parts here though.

I couldn’t believe how little you could buy 2 litres of cider for!!! As much alcohol as 1.5 bottles of wine for a little over £2!! TWS needs to up their game!

That’ll now be £7.50 - I can’t help but think this is a fantastic idea as is a sugar tax which in my opinion is waaaaay too narrow - It should apply to a lot more products.

Ultimately no-one needs sweet fizzy drinks and alcohol - They’re purely for pleasure, but if they do significantly contribute to the lifestyle diseases and anti-social behaviour they absolutely should be taxed. Though on the continent this isn’t the case - It’s such a shame the UK as a population has such a problem with booze.

It’s always odd how government looks at the substance and price and nothing to do with the context - Kind of makes you think Tony Blair was on to something with the 24 hour drinking.

Official figures signal the rise of the teetotaller in Britain - with almost half the population now shunning a regular drink.

the rest of what you have written sounds like a political mantra so I will not comment on this blog, but I will say no one is going to ration how much “pleasure” I am allowed, sounds like a stasi state.

Mr @cerberus i certainly agree with you that alcohol consumption had been dropping as a trend, but the distribution of how it is drunk and who by is what this is targeted at. I’m sure this policy is not targeted at WS members (unless you’re drinking prem cru on a park bench with questionable singing) or denying a small life pleasure to responsible drinkers.

It won’t really affect the quality end but it will affect the cheap, high alcohol end. I think it’s fair to say no one likes a stasi state but i think quite a few gov interventions such as the seat belt laws, smoking ban, advertising restrictions and so on has hugely changed our attitudes and maybe alcohol and abuse of it is another one which needs addressing. It may be minor to us… i don’t really have to encounter drunks and i can afford to buy more expensive alcohol. However, for the small population who are going after cheap and highly alcoholic drinks to get out of their mind and being anti-social the gov has to use some kind of instrument to address it. Yes it’s blunt but what’s the alternative?

The alternative is for government to cease interfering. It’s quite clear from tobacco in the UK, and I’d say alcohol too, that if people want it they’ll pay for it. All that higher pricing from additional taxation achieves is to reduce yet further the income of those with the least, and cost everyone more. (It also encourages the development of the cheapest, nastiest drinks, since the tax per bottle is so high that to get the price to consumer down the liquid has to be nigh-on free). It doesn’t do an awful lot to change consumption, and is pointless if that is the aim, and harms the weekly budget for the poorest through to the wealthiest.

(And increase taxation / minimum pricing too far, and you’ll quickly find a range of home-brewed and illegally distilled drinks appearing all over the black market. No tax revenue gained, likely higher consumption, and the provenance and safety highly questionable, not to mention pushy ‘dealers’, debt, and associated issues. The more a government interferes, the worse it usually makes things.)

Best thing the government could do would be to get out of it, or at least take a far more benign approach. Agree with you that 24-hr drinking would be fine (those who wish to already do so in late-night venues, so there’s nothing to suggest the take-up would be greater, nor any need for the restrictions) - the current licensing hours were a ‘temporary’ wartime measure, if I recall, and there’s no need for them now save for habit.

I guess the government are damned if they do or don’t as they’ll be held to account for not attempting to tackle anti-social drinking or for heavy handed taxation. I suppose if it’s that unpopular the opposition will have something to campaign on.

True enough. But anti-social drinking is not affected by price, so taxation is entirely the wrong measure. For example, there’s plenty of it in London, at sporting events, and elsewhere, where the pricing of alcoholic drinks is extortionate; anti-social louts are likely to be anti-social louts, whatever you charge them.

As for the Scottish thing… daft implementation. If you want to tax booze, you tax booze - the exchequer at least gets something from it. But a minimum unit price just costs the buyer more whilst handing the extra cash to the manufacturer! If the end effect is supposed to be reducing consumption by higher prices, then tax it, don’t impose a minimum sales price. Same outcome of raising the cost, and the exchequer benefits.

My average now is about 2x 175 mils per day, give or take 3 or 4. …red wine to white 4 : 1
I reckon the biggest influences on your ability to consume any life shortening food, alcohol intake depend on the genes headed down to you thru your family line.

I thought Rab C Nesbitt’s proposal to do away with tax/duty on cigarettes and alcohol was worth a trial…he reckoned that any good drinker/smoker wouldn’t reach retirement age, thus saving on paying out pensions !